Do We Really Need A Naturist Martyr?Consider this: You have been a prisoner for six years and have been naked all that time in protest and as a statement of principle, and as a consequence you do not have any normal interaction with your fellow prisoners. You are not in solitary but your life is being led segregated from the rest of the prison, which means every time you are moved, the other 133 inmates on your wing are temporarily locked into their cells. Every morning, a prison officer enters your cell and asks if you will get dressed. You know if you say yes, you can have a normal life again – normal as far as a prison can provide anyway – and if you remain clothed, you could go home to your friends and family. What would your answer be?
This is a description of the life being led by Steve Gough – aka the naked rambler indeed, the first naked rambler – given in an interview with Neil Forsyth of The Guardian. Over the years, Gough has given a number of interviews from prison, of which this is the latest and if he keeps to his word then I suspect it will not be his last.
Gough divides opinion among naturists, never mind the rest of the population, and they find it hard to understand why a man now in his 50s would want to potentially spend the rest of his life in goal, when he could so easily be released. He explained to Forsyth that in 2000, he and his then wife was living in Vancouver, British Columbia when he had an epiphany. “I realised I was good. Being British, buried in our upbringing is that we’re not good or have to watch ourselves – maybe it comes from religion, or school. I realised that at a fundamental level I’m good, we’re all good, and you can trust that one part of yourself.’ Adding, “The human body isn’t offensive. If that’s what we’re saying, as human beings, then it’s not rational.”
This doesn’t sound a million miles away from what Richard Ungewitter wrote in his 1905 book Nakedness: “Only the artificially nourished ‘fear of nakedness’ the ‘hidden’ human body, the mark of the ‘sinful’ flesh could produce concepts like morality and decency which fly in the face of reason.” And yet, the last thing that Gough will ever call himself is a naturist.
Every time Gough attempts to leave prison naked, he finds himself back there for another stretch, for breach of the peace and contempt of court. He believes that he must keep doing this, in order to uphold his principle that the naked body is not offensive and for his desire to return home to Eastleigh, Sussex, naked. In many ways I agree with Gough. The human body is not offensive, neither is it shameful nor sinful, nor immodest. These concepts act as external behavioural controls so we humans can live in large groups, but wouldn’t it be better if that discipline could come from within through self-discipline. We admire someone who is self-disciplined in the workplace, why not in the social sense too?
Some people might call Gough stubborn (he describes himself as “hardcore”), yet…. And yet, I cannot help wondering if Gough is standing in a hole and digging deeper? No matter how stubborn (principled and high-minded, if you like) Gough can be, the justice system can be more so, especially when it comes to upholding the right of the court to dispense justice on society’s behalf and for its orders to be obeyed. Neither Gough nor the Scottish judiciary want to give up it seems, so we have come to a stalemate. In order for that to end, a compromise must be reached but Gough will brook no such thing. He even refused to cover his penis with his hands when The Guardian‘s photographer asked him to, as it was another form of “covering up” and somehow undermines the purity of the human body. As a consequence, both Gough and the justice system in Scotland are paying a huge price, maybe too high. Gough in terms of his relationships with loved ones, and the legal system in the cost of keeping a man in prison, whom many already agree should not be there.
What this standoff reminds me of are the stories of martyrdom, whereby through an act of stubbornness over a principle (others might say act of faith), a person leads a life of deprivation, even unto death. So is Gough a martyr? I don’t think so, nor do I think we want one.
In another Guardian article about Gough, this time in 2010, journalist Andrew Anthony asked: “What is it about Britain and nudity? Even in saunas we hold onto towels as though they were lifelines. Yet bare breasts are the wallpaper of tabloid culture, lap-dancing bars litter the nation’s high streets and the most forensic pornography is available at the click of a mouse.
“It’s as though we can only accept nudity if it’s sexualised. Nudity for nudity’s sake – well, that deeply suspect.”
To my mind, Gough is trying to bludgeon the Scottish legal system into submission when he needs to be subtle. The justice system is the servant of society as a whole. If the legal system is to be changed then society needs changing before it. That is the fight that Steve Gough – and the rest of naturism – should be fighting, not languishing inside HMP Perth contemplating his next release and re-arrest.
An edited version of this is blog will appear in the May issue of H&E Naturist.
I regard myself as a naturist but I would never go to jail for it and nor would I walk the streets, there is more to life than proving a point.
I agree with chrisbe and have the same view, as much as i implore what steve gough is standing for there are limits to the extent of what we can do, i doubt if he will ever win against the scottish law, if it was english he may have stood a very good chance of compromise.
I personally was impressed with Malcolm Boura’s idea propounded at the BN naturist Convention.
His suggestion is that were Steve Gough to leave court clothed and then proceed on a walk to John O’Groats, fully dressed, with a cortège of police cars following him all the way at the taxpayers’ expense, the resulting total embarrassment on worldwide TV for all Scottish authorities, including its police force, would be the best propaganda naturism could possibly get.
All it needs is for Steve Gough to put the interests of naturism before his insular, quixotic personal vendetta with the Scottish Police. Alas I believe is has too far gone!
Hugz Will
Steve Gough has said he’s not a naturist and he deplores (that’s a nice word) our willingness to stay in “tolerated ghettos”. If he once put clothes on to get out of prison, it would be unfortunately just like him to wait until he had the maximum audience, then undress again. And if they loaded him into a van and drove him across the border and pushed him out, he’d most likely walk straight back into Scotland.
Naturism is a cause I would be willing to die for (but I don’t want to) – this is the easy part (mentally that is). The hard part is how best to persuade society at large that the human body is to be celebrated rather than regarded as indecent, that nakedness is OK. Both Steve and the legal system are behaving in a ridiculously intransigent fashion, somehow there needs to be a resolution, and as you say, Will, Steve could be more effective out of jail than in (I also like Malcolm’s idea). Confining naturism to designated areas will not change attitudes (and may even harden them), I am more and more convinced that clothes-optional events are the way of encouraging healthier attitudes to our bodies throughout society. I am optimistic that we are reaching the point where a majority of people are becoming willing to at least tolerate public nakedness.
Some further thoughts. Something like this could happen to any of us. Recently a community police officer called to tell me that someone had looked through my laurel hedge and seen me naked in the garden (sic and sick). No action proposed by the police (no law broken), but he said “you might want to change our behaviour” – I don’t and won’t. Now imagine this future. Several other people complain. The police decide that they need to do something and get heavy with me. I refuse to be intimidated. The police talk again to the complainants (or find new hedge inspectors) and as a result of these conversations, someone is encouraged to allege alarm and distress. Now the police feel there is a case to answer. They offer me a caution. I refuse. The rest you can write yourself. Dragged through the courts, sentence by magistrates ignorant of the law in this area etc. I refuse to pay fines, to be bound over and end up in jail. I will not sacrifice what I regard as a fundamental right to be naked, and without which I cannot countenance life on this planet, and refuse to have my body treated as a crime scene. So here I am, Steve Gough the Second.
We should campaign for his release, on humanitarian or compassionate grounds, and offer the services of someone from the naturist community with the skills to act as a negotiator to seek a resolution from this ridiculous life sentence.
While I see where you (and Will) are coming from you appear to be ignoring the fact that the ‘campaigning’ and ‘negotiating a compromise’ stages have all been done (including the ideas put forward by Malcolm Boura), and Steve isn’t budging. As a kid, did you ever play the staring game? It’s just like that, who is going to blink first; Steve Gough or the Scottish judiciary.
I hope your scenario never comes about, but if it did, ask yourself this question before we pronounce you as a martyr to the naturist cause. Are my actions addressing the symptoms or the disease? If we are to be accepted by society then we must persuade the majority that us being simply naked is not the problem, it is the assumptions that the other person makes when seeing us naked that is. We don’t need a mass introduction to naturism to be accepted, just an understanding that we are not the threat to law and order that many seem to think automatically that we are.
What I am proposing is much harder than constantly bashing your head against a brick wall, which is how I view Steve Gough’s actions, but the end result will be a much better – fairer – society for naturists and non-naturists alike.
Reg
We are already accepted by the law and public, we have clubs and beaches that we can go to and there is not a crowd of people with tar and feathers waiting for us.
Take Brighton beach, it has become a tourist attraction, the naturists never cause any bother or deliberately attract attention but the same cannot be said of some of the other users, however the behaviour is commented on, ‘Brighton Naturist Beach encourages lewd behaviour’ but it wasn’t the naturists, it would be other groups that gop to the beach for their own pleasure.
We lost Littlehampton beach because naked men would stand on top of the dunes so that people passing by could see them, the women never did it, the beach was closed to narurists because of the behaviour, but it wasn’t us.
If my neighborours are out I try to get an all over suntan but if they are in I do not, its all about appropiate behaviour in the right places.
Chris
quote Rouget :- Some further thoughts. Something like this could happen to any of us. Recently a community police officer called to tell me that someone had looked through my laurel hedge and seen me naked in the garden (sic and sick). No action proposed by the police (no law broken), but he said “you might want to change our behaviour” – I don’t and won’t.
surely the person making the complaint was actually peeping and isn’t voyeurism an offence these days? Laurel hedges are reasonably thick and impervious to “straying” eyes but “prying” eyes another story! did they tell the Police how long they stopped and watched just in case you were wearing skimpy clothes and not just naked?!
Ric blondie64
Although I can’t argue against some of what you say; yes there are clubs and beaches that naturists can use (both official and unofficial) but accepted by society? I think not. The law may says that simple nudity is not illegal, but try telling that to the likes of Nigel Keer. And yes, I agree Chris, it is largely about appropriate behaviour in any given circumstance, but I ask you who are setting the standards?
For the sake of good neighbourly relations you have decided to curtail your garden naturism to when they are out and therefore not seen. What you haven’t said is if you have spoken to your neighbours about your desire to have an “all over tan”? Assuming you haven’t, and just assumed they’d object, then who is dictating your behaviour, you or your neighbours. If naturism was truly accepted within society then your neighbours would not give a fig if you were in your garden dressed, half dressed or naked. They would see you, their neighbour, not their neighbour who is naked.
For once, in my unlearned opinion, the law is in advance of society and much of it finds the desire to be naked in a social/recreational sense at best odd, at worst, that we are all sex mad. If naturism is to be truly accepted in society then we need to change the public’s attitude towards social nudity to something they feel more positive about, even if they don’t participate themselves. My personal view is that I just don’t think Steve Gough’s attempt to bludgeon the Scottish legal system into submission is helpful in doing this.
Of course my neighbours know I am a naturist but I have decided to make life easy as one side has 2 teenage girls and the other side have young growing children so for their sakes I choose not to be unclothed in the garden, the neighbours are not the slightest bit bothered but the children like to bring friends home as do the neighbour and under no circumstances would I create an opportunity for someone to take offence.
It’s not a way of life for me, it is something I enjoy.
CB-R
Yes, Ric, you are right about me effectively being spied upon – wish I had had the presence of mind to mention it to the PC … and Chris, my neighbours got used to me being naked in the garden at the same time as I did, as I gradually changed from just sunbathing in some secluded part to naked gardening in the whole garden. They know me well and have for many years enjoyed the fruits (or more accurately the vegetables) of my labours so are unlikely to criticise the gardener’s dress/undress. But If they had guests etc. who were not ready for all this, then I would be sensitive to that.
Reg, I quite agree that public opinion is of great importance, the clothes-optional events such as WNBR help convince people that being naked is enjoyable and not a problem. Whether or not we agree with Steve Gough’s approach, as a felllow naturist we should, I feel, lend him our support and help. It may seem (and might be) an intractable situation, which others has tried to solve before, but then so have so many conflicts in the past; some, but far from all, have been resolved by skilled negotiation (e.g. Northern Ireland). Maybe first a campaign for his release. then it might be possible for fellow naturists to convince him that he can be more effective outside jail than inside; the Scottish legal system might agree to look again at SG’s conviction and the current application of the law in this area; and some compromise agreement could be reached. I am probably being utterly naive in all this, but then it does seem completely batty that we have someone locked up for life for being naked. As for the garden scenario I outlined, it is unlikely that it would take place, but if it did then I could back down at any stage (and I have no intention of following S Gough) – but at the cost of no longer being able to garden naked, an outrageous infringement of my liberty.
First, can I take a moment to apologise to Chrisbe. I should’ve used the phrase “For argument sake” somewhere in my reply to him as I had no intention of personalising it the way I have. I was trying to use his situation to illustrate (to all readers) that it should not matter to his neighbours – young and old – or their visitors that he was in his own garden naked. One of the things I like about naturism is that it forces people to look at the true person, not the image they like to project and that is how true friendships are forged.
Anyhow. You wrote Rouget: “Whether or not we agree with Steve Gough’s approach, as a felllow naturist we should, I feel, lend him our support and help.” This is the first common mistake people make – including myself in the beginning – Gough isn’t a naturist. He may fill the criteria for being so named but he refuses the title and probably why so many naturists – individuals and organisations – have given up on him.
The thing is, are you suggesting that “we” should campaign for his release despite his wish not to accept any outside help, in particular from those who might understand his views? I agree that in order for both Gough and the Scottish legal system to withdraw from this stalemate in good grace, a negotiated compromise is in order, but Gough has consistently refused to comply. It says so in the article (www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/23/naked-rambler-prison?). Oddly enough, by working for greater acceptance within society, we shall be working for his release, it just won’t be tomorrow.
Reg is correct in his summing up of Steve’s aims, basically put Steve wants to beat the system more than he wants ‘The Freedom to be Yourself”, a campaign slogan he stole from Vincent Bethell (and Vincent isn’t too happy about it.). Steve, as Reg has pointed out, isn’t a naturist, does not seek release from prison, he just wants to have things his way!
That said I still think we should capitalise on Steve’s continued incarceration, it is a great vehicle for publicity, it would be pointless raising money for a lawyer, or arranging for a group of naked activists to aid in Steve’s escape upon release, none of this would be acceptable to Steve.
What we should do is orchestrate a campaign to highlight the stupidity of this impasse, make this such a high profile case that the Scottish legal system is embarrassed to the point that they are forced into a situation where it is prudent to get rid of the problem, instead of facing further embarrassment. Public ridicule and scorn frequently works far better than battling with an entrenched legal system.
Of course we have long realised that it isn’t the laws of the land that put Steve behind bars in the first place, it is the bias and personal prudery of the people who pull the leavers of the system. All too many times we have seen naked people face charges totally unrelated to the nature of the incident, such as the Aston Villa streaker who is on the sex offenders register, Nigel Keer charged under S5 of POA, both cases of using a hammer to crack a walnut. It seems that, as there is no specific law to prevent naked rambling or even streaking, the operators of the legal system will twist whatever law they can to put a stop to anything THEY think should be stopped.
This of course is where Duncan’s project comes in, it is an effort to highlight these corruptions of the legal system that allow lawful people to be persecuted in order to fit a personal world view that nudity is somehow wrong. What makes this so obvious is Steve’s walk through numerous police jurisdictions, many where some forces left Steve and Melanie alone, and others where they harassed then at every opportunity, a notable inconsistency that Duncan hopes to exploit.
As of 17 July 2012, Steve Gough is a free man. But whether he’ll stay that way is another question.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-18873631
I think the picture is an old one.
Lets hope he does stay out, he could be more effective now outside prison, campaigning. It is good to have people like Steve acting according to their conscience and willling to suffer the consequences. As you say, Pete, laws get twisted by those who want to stop nakedness. And evidence can be ‘enhanced’ eg the police encouraging people to complain and then use the right words to secure a conviction. I think that most textile people are now pretty laid back about seeing naked people. Some are enthusiastic, some OK, some may not like it too much but see no need for bans. But then there are the minority who want to stop it. It is unlikely that a sweeping law banning nakedness in public places could get enacted and many of us would be out there campaigning against such a proposal. But beware of the potential for a creeping erosion of our rights.
Think of what is happening with smoking. Now I do not smoke and would advocate that people do not smoke. But it is not against the law. However it is being made difficult to obtain tobacco, there is a ban on smoking in public places and the workplace etc. This is being done to improve peoples health, to save costs to the NHS and to protect children. All with the best intentions and approved of by many people.
Now translate (roughly) this to nakedness. An opportunity may arise for the ‘upholders of public morals’ to bite into our rights. For example, the Olympics could be used. For anyone reading this, did you see the way police roughly treated a streaker at an olympic torch parade? Suppose someone could come up wih the idea of banning nakedness within the Olympic Park. They describe this as a moderate measure to prevent a mockery of the games and to protect the prestige of Britain around the world, blah, blah …. Everyone goes along with this. Next, emboldened by their success, these same people try for a ban on nakedness within centres of population …. you get the idea, our can rights get eroded gradually.
Now, suppose that our vigorous campaigns against such measures fail and a law gets passed. I ask you, would you be willing to break this law and suffer any consequences? I don’t want to go there, but I would. Nakedness to me is one inalienable human right without which life would be dull. Or would you retreat to a naturist ghetto of high security licensed premises and designated beaches? Your choice, but remember that rights can be easily taken away and are very hard to restore, with much suffering en-route (witness the gay liberation struggle).
Roger Coupe
I agree that we must resist at all costs any creeping erosion of our rights. The great majority of people don’t care one way or the other and society must not pander to a minority of bigots and prudes. Like Roger, I would be prepared to break a silly law, though I am a very law abiding person, in order to protect my freedoms and rights as a naturist. We really should be in closer step with the rest of Europe who would look upon the way the police behave sometimes when they encounter nudity as somewhat crazy.
Steve Gough was released from Perth prison on the morning of 16th July 2012 under Court Order and with full written compliance from the Police.
Steve has been walking naked from Perth since then. We have been tracking his walk from the Facebook group http://www.facebook.com/groups/freestephengough/ of 2,241 members and in liaison with the Scottish Sun, Evening Post and Independent on Sunday.
Steve arrived at the edge of Dunfermline this afternoon and rested to eat lunch. whereupon he was arrested by Fife Constabulary, taken to Dunfermline Police Station and is being detained in custody on a charge of breach of the Peace pending a court hearing on Monday.
I have a few minutes ago sent the following email to
contact@fife.pnn.police.uk
professional.standards@fife.pnn.police.uk
Sirs
Arrest of Mr Stephen Gough on the afternoon of 20th July 2012 whilst in the course of peacefully eating his lunch unattired
I refer to the ruling on Breach of the Peace, in 2001 in the High Court of Justiciary, where Lord Coulsfield held that breach of the peace required “conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community” and that “mere annoyance or irritation were insufficient”.
Misapplication of the legislation governed by this ruling would in itself constitute Breach of the Peace by any individual(s) conducting such misapplication. Fife Constabulary is hereby on notice to provide indisputable evidence, including a physical witness, of “serious disturbance to the community”.
In this regard, this message is being copied to Professional Standards and constitutes a formal complaint.
Thank you and regards
Will Golden
His arrest again is utterly outrageous. Good email, Will.
Anyone ready for some action eg a mass nude protest?
Roger Coupe
Please can everybody email a protest to those two addresses. Make them your own style.
Mine is a guideline I guess, I kept it fairly bookish. But we can’t have 1500 emails exactly the same. They will end up in the police spam folder.
Oh and, by the way Roger……. Richard and I, probably with Chris Lamb, will be doing the Friston SOC walk next Friday. Please join us! I can’t make the Medway tomorrow!
And join our Naked rambler FB group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/freestephengough/
Hugz Will
FYI guys, the case precedent was Appeal 407/00 Pamela Smith vs the Procurator Fiscal, Dumbarton, 28th Septenber 2001.
In fact Ms Smith’s action would be viewed considerable more disturbing than Steve Gough eating lunch unattired in the mind of any right-thinking person. The charge was initially brought against her for disturbing the course of traffic whilst laying across a highway in an anti-naval Base protest.
Damn! The 2 email adds you have given and I have written to them come back as “unroutable addresses” so have fife police pulled the plug or did you get them right Will? Regards and a big wooden spoon to the wooden plods who arrested steve!
Ian
I am still incredulous that the authorities can behave in this way. Do we need a naturist martyr? We would wish that it was not necessary but apparently we do! I will do those emails but I am feeling ready for some stronger action.
Will, best wishes and I look forward to joining you on the SOC Friston walk, pity you can’t make the medway one.
Roger
No Mike. They have Professional Standards have asked me for a corrrespondencv e address. so i expect toi be firebombed LOL!
Managed to email using a diff email account so have sent my twopennyworth to the Plods in Fife! Surely the Courts will throw it out?
“Surely the Courts will throw it out?”
Not necessarily, it has been noted in numerous cases that if the bench shares the same prejudices as the police and CPS the verdict is a foregone conclusion, this was evident in the Nigel Keer case.
The hope is that the media attention will colour their thinking, and a less embarrassing solution will be the outcome. I believe that Perth police took this view, which is why Steve was allowed to walk naked from prison this time. I believe that the Inspector from Perth has contacted Fife Police to advise them, the outcome may be favourable.
Left alone unhindered the problem will disappear south of the border, the Scottish police only took 6 years to figure that out.